Ought Great Britain have sought an armistice with Germany in June 1940?

This is a sort of follow-up to Fred's discussion as to whether the US would have declared war on Germany if Hitler hadn't declared war first.

A thorny moral question, given what we now know about the Nazi regime's genocidal plans, I know.

But, based on the known situation as it stood in June 1940, should Britain have attempted an armistice, if so, would it have been accepted, and what would have been the consequences for the further conduct of the war by all nations directly involved?

 

You pose an interesting, multi-part question. Let me answer the easy part first: Would Hitler have accepted a peace with the British Empire in the summer of 1940? Emphatically YES. Hitler was never serious about invading England despite the myth abut Operation Sealion. Just look at who wrote the book regarding the German plans -- Peter Flemming (brother to Ian Flemming, the writer of "Chitty-chitty Bang-bang," and other myths). The Fleming brothers had been operatives for British Intelligence (the Intrepid Organization-- mission, to get the US into the war alongside Britain).

And look at what happened to Rudolf Hess, Adolf's BBF. He was sent to Britain on a mission to broker a PEACE.

When Winston became PM there was a dramatic sea-change in British policy which took a while for the German Command to understand. They had been used to Chamberlin, but since Neville was suffering from Cancer, he lacked the energy demanded by the situation.

Should Winston have offered Adolf peace terms? NO. While a 1040 peace would have saved British lives and gold in the short term, it would have meant a heavy cost to Britain in the long term. And it would have meant personal political suicide for Winston.

 

In January 1933, Ludendorf sent a note to Hindenburg.
I quote
'You have delivered upon our Nation, possibly the greatest demagogue in History. I warn you now, this accursed man will take our beloved Fatherland into the abyss and you will be cursed in your grave for the action you have taken this day'

Thank god it was Churchill and not Halifax who became PM.

At the end of WW2
Russia had lost 25 million of her people but became a superpower with virtual control over Eastern Europe.
America lost fewer men than they did in the civil war, suffered virtually no collateral damage and emerged twice as rich as the day they enetered it.
Britain was bankrupt, no gold reserves, no foreign currency reserves, no intellectual property, this had to be given to the U.S. under lend lease. Up to our neck in debt to America, the last payment was made in December 2006.

So on the face of it we didn't do too well but I still say that defeating Hitler was the single most important act in history and any hardship, financial or otherwise had to be endured.

It may have taken us 40 years to recover from being the poor man of Europe but thank god it was Churchill and not Halifax who became PM.

 

^^ Well said that man.

 

Britain would had been better off with Germany. Just look at Britain today- a digrace. At least hitler admired the European culture and race, more so than the Jews ever will.

Only Jews won WWII.

 

Yes it would have been wonderful to live in a state that imprisons anyone for thinking the wrong thing and being despised by every decent human being, oh, and the joys of eradicating people of any creed or culture just because you disagreed with them.

How very utopian.

 

You present a point that only reassures me that the Germany first policy was a good one.

 

My father was one of those British soldiers who cleared up Bergen Belsen. He was regular army. The only time I ever saw him hit anyone was when somebody blamed the Jews for the War . My father was a Christian and normally a mild mannered man. 100,000 German Jews served in the British army in World War II, more so than any Christian Germans did !!

 

Well, to answer the question of this thread, I believe that an armistice with Germany would have at the time been disastrous for the U.K. It would have allowed Germany the breathing room it needed to take on Russia. In the short term it would have allowed the U.K. to focus on other problems, but the problem with Germany would not go away and it would have to be dealt with, and that is without considering Hitler's racist views.

 

Hitler did indeed wish to preserve the British Empire, unfortunately hardly any of his subordinates did, and the British knew very well that with Hitler gone and Germany master of Europe all the way to the Urals, they would be unable to defend themselves from such an assemblage of forces in the longer term, even with direct American help. The understanding of this fact underpinned centuries of British policy: to allow no one power to become master of Europe. It was an act of wishful thinking on Hitler's part to imagine that the British would abandon this policy, but then Kaiser Wilhelm II and his cronies suffered from a similar delusion.

Ludendorff would have known what Hindenburg had done, since he himself was involved in the same anti-Semitic and occult/nationalist organizations that fostered Hitler and the Nazis.

 

By 1939 the Policy of Appeasement had failed. Remember it was Chamberlain whose voice echoes down the passage of time to declare Britain at War with Germany not Churchill's. In May 1940 however it was Churchill who replaced Chamberlain and not Lord Halifax, The Socialists and Liberals would not serve in a National Government led by a Lord and an appeaser. Let's not forget that Hitler was not alone in his demands on Britain. Mussolini and Franco were waiting in the wings to pick off bits. (Egypt,Malta and Gibraltar for starters). The price Britain would pay in lost prestige would have been enormous. As Churchill observed "Nations that go down fighting rise again. nations that don't are finished."
Viewed from the eye of a modern critic Halifax's policy of a negotiated peace was more logical than Churchill's "we will fight on the beaches etc" BUT Britain in 1940 is not Britain 2014 and attitudes and values differed. Churchill was an imperialist as well as a domestic democrat. He was fighting the preserve what he and many of his people believe to be Britain's place in the world. In this role Churchill was magnificent and his people stubborn. The irony is that Britain survived; helped win the war, but lost its empire and is still struggling to accept it is no longer a World power.

 

Don't be too hard on the British situation. You might not be the empire that the sun never sets on anymore, but it ain't the bottom of the ninth yet.

 

Have you any idea what life would have been like under Hitler?
Everytime you had a dispute with a neighbour, everytime there was a knock at the door, your heart in your mouth fearing who it was.
No rock n roll that would have been banned, no right to protest and you certainly wouldn't be allowed to voice your racist opinions on a site like this, forums would have been banned.
Furthermore, tell me what exactly is the European race?
Do you mean the Northern tall, blonde Nordic type, like me?
That is not a race, it is technically a stock.
What about Spaniards or Southern French, Greek or any other darker skinned people, they are meditteranean stock?

Just to educate you, there are three basic stocks of man.
Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid.
Man is not like dogs where a German Shepherd is similar to a Great Dane, Bulldog or Poodle, we simply don't have that variation in our species.
Most of us are around 5'6" - 6'3" and weigh around 180 pounds. A few minor facial differences and a colour that suited our environment.
There is only one race, the human race.
If you want to compare us to dogs, then like German Shepherds, we can have white fur, black fur, grey fur etc.

As to the Jews winning WW2, you may be right, Hitler got rid of some of the best scientists in the world, Lisa Meitner, Otto Slizard, Edward Teller, Einstein to name just a few that fled to the West. Then of course many, many top engineers, and what I would call supporting cast died in the death camps. When it comes to scientific brains, maybe they are the chosen few. And before you even think about it, no, I'm not Jewish.

 

With all due respect to your ideals, I must clarify my earlier statements. Hitler believed in only allowing his ideals and hatred and that is what defeated him in the end. When I make comments on this site I mean no disrespect, yet I call it as I see it, and if Hitler had his way I would be dead because I don't fit his ideal of what is good. To keep to the theme of this thread, should the U.K. had cut a deal with Hitler and I firmly believe not just no but emphatically no, because of what Hitler represented and accomplished in his hatred, if that offends anybody I am truly sorry.

 

Sadly jrj for the anti-semitic version of history the truth is of no interest to them, only their world view of the power of the mythical Shylock. Far from the Jews "winning" out of World War 2 most European Jews were displaced persons. In an sense many were left with no option than to end up in Palestine. The War did not end the persecution of the Jews. In Russia, Poland and later in the Arab world there was widespread attacks on Jews. In the new Europe that is slowly emerging following the partial collapse of the Soviet Empire the nasty face of anti-semitic fascism has once more emerge, but also a subtler more frightening Left-wing anti-semtism disguised in the linguistic fancy dress of "Zionism". The idea that the Jews benifitted from WW2 is at best grotesque, at worse falsifying history with the aim of inciting racial-hatred.

 

I know that to most the truth is multiple-choice and they choose what best fits into their prideful opinion, trying to convince them is a waste of time, yet there are those who are learning from these hate mongers, and since I believe in freedom of speech I practice this freedom to poke holes in the arguments of the hate and fear mongers to show them for what they are, to diffuse them before they tap into the fear and pride of those who struggle, to reveal them before we get another Hitler, and I admit I would like to maybe convince the fear and hate mongers to come in out of the dark.

 

OK. ​

​

We've had a couple of what I would suggest to be 'emotional' responses to the question I posted about ten days ago.​

​

The question asked was;​

​

'Based on the known situation as it stood in June 1940, should Britain have attempted an armistice, if so, would it have been accepted, and what would have been the consequences for the further conduct of the war by all nations directly involved?'​

​

It was not a question about morality, anti - semitism, the consequences of living under fascist rule, or about the effect on any one individual.​

​

Please allow me to state the position, as I see it, as it happened and why it happened, on the channel front, as it stood on the 25th June 1940. ​

​

Might consider making a cup of coffee first.​

​

​

​

Poland, France, Britain, Germany, the USSR and the inevitability of war​

​

Following the series of bloodless expansionary actions carried out by the Nazi regime between 1935 and the spring of 1939, ( Saarland, Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland, creating Bohemia and Moravia out of the remaining portion of Czechoslovakia ), it became obvious that Poland was next on Hitler’s list of targets.​

​

​

Insofar as France and the UK were concerned, it was time for the seemingly relentless expansionistic aims of National Socialist Germany to be halted, by force, if necessary.​

​

​

On March 31, 1939, the British pledged to militarily support Poland in the event of ​

​

​

‘ any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty’s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to that effect. I may add that the French Government have authorised me to make it plain that they stand in the same position.’​

​

​

The effect of this agreement was two fold, in that it bolstered the resolve of the Polish Government to defy German efforts to wrest the port of Danzig from Poland and create an overland communication ‘corridor’ across Polish territory between that city and the ever growing Reich, and, as a result of this Polish intransigence, appears to have firmly decided Hitler that an immediate military invasion of Poland was both desirable and inevitable.​

​

The signing of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the 23rd of August dramatically reinforced Hitler’s resolve in the situation, and, on the other side of the hill, directly lead to the signing of the Polish - British Common Defence Pact on the 25th.​

​

​

It is commonly believed that this agreement offered Poland a carte blanche assurance of British ( and therefore French ) assistance in the event of a foreign attack.​

​

​

Actually this is not the case. ​

​

​

In a secret protocol, the British agreed to offer assistance only if the threat came from Germany - but did not provide the same guarantee about incursions by any other power ( which, by default, meant the USSR ), unless ‘ consult(ations) together (agreed) on measures to be taken in common’.​

​

​

This means the British ONLY committed to fight if Germany invaded, leaving Poland open to attack from the USSR.​

​

 

In the event, of course, Poland was invaded on the 1st of September, 1939 by the Germans, and by the USSR on the 17th.

Britain, nor France, lifted one finger to help.

It is my belief that neither country ever intended to assist Poland, particularly the British.

Chamberlain is often treated by history as a weak, indecisive, incapable man, who rolled over and acquiesced to each and every demand made by Hitler ,right up until the point where the situation had deteriorated to a point where ‘something had to be done’, by which time it was too late.

I rather think the reality is somewhat different.

Recognising the expansionist designs of National Socialist Germany as far back as 1935, I believe the British government realised that a war in Western Europe with Germany at any time in the mid to late 1930’s would be a very close run affair, given the state of military equipment and preparedness of both sides.

It is no coincidence that the mid 1930’s suddenly saw a definite swing of British and French policy from one of peace to one of preparation for war.

During this period, both countries initiated the construction and expansion of the industrial means in order to prepare for a continental war.

Each nation was a modern democracy and Government had to pay at least lip service to the demands of a public that could, at any time, displace any government from power.

Similarly, public expenditure on military expansion had to be carefully monitored and regulated so as not to damage public opinion - remember the 1930’s had been a time of severe economic distress throughout the western world and in a traditionally non militaristic society such as Great Britain, the massive costs of rearmament had to be balanced against a background of the need to meet the social needs of the voting public.

This effect was clearly seen in France, with rapid changes in Government and pubic opinion combining, alongside an essentially defensive military mind-set to delay the development and integration of new weapons systems to levels which brought about the ultimately disastrous consequences of May 1940.

The same most definitely cannot be said of the efforts of the UK.

 

In the period under consideration, the British introduced the following weapons into full scale production;

The ‘Matilda’ Infantry Tank, one of the most heavily armoured tanks of the era, although it was comparatively under-gunned and slow compared to other designs.

The ‘Cruiser Mk IV ‘ a fast, lightly armoured tank that ultimately saw successful use in the Western desert against contemporary German and Italian designs.

The ‘Hawker Hurricane’ eight gun monoplane fighter aircraft.

The ‘Supermarine Spitfire’ eight gun monoplane fighter aircraft.

The ‘Armstrong - Whitworth Whitley’ twin engine heavy bomber

The ‘Vickers Wellington’ heavy ( for the time ) twin engined bomber.

The ‘Handley Page Hampden’ twin engine medium bomber.

The ‘Bristol Blenheim’ medium bomber.

All were, by the standards of the time, advanced types and all were of a similar capability to types being introduced to Germany’s armed forces.


In addition, prototypes had flown, or detailed production plans had been submitted for Air Ministry approval for the following types to be introduced into service in 1939 / 40;

The ‘DeHavilland Mosquito’ medium bomber - proposed in detail by September 1939.

The ‘Handley Page Halifax’ heavy bomber - first flight September 1939

The ‘Short Stirling’ four engine heavy bomber - first flown 14 May 1939

The ‘Avro Manchester’ twin engine heavy, immediate ancestor of the ‘Lancaster’ - first flown 25th July 1939

The ‘Bristol Beaufighter’ twin engine long range heavy fighter - prototype flown 17th July 1939

With the exception of the Mosquito, all aircraft were designed to meet Air Ministry Specifications issued between 1936 and 1938.

The ‘Valentine’ infantry tank had been designed by 1938 and was in full production after trials in May 1940.

Furthermore, no less than twenty-four ‘shadow factories’ were either completed or under construction to produce components for, or entire aircraft of these new types, introducing a cleverly dispersed system designed to obviate the worst consequences of aerial bombardment by a foreign power.

Which foreign power was, quite obviously, going to be Germany.

 

All this innovation needed time, huge investment and determination to effect.

Time was the one thing the UK did not have in the late 1930’s.

As such, I would suggest that Chamberlain was, in fact far, far more canny and far sighted than he is so often painted.

I also believe he was far more ruthless in his assessment of the realpolitik of the situation in Europe than perhaps his subsequent reputation would suggest.

Britain had, throughout it’s recent history, followed a policy of standing back from European conflicts, using her navy to supply and reinforce small British expeditionary forces as a means of leading coalitions of continental powers to defeat the prospect of any one continental power from gaining the ascendancy over the others.

This method of ‘maintaining the balance of Continental power’ enabled Britain to maintain its absolute dominance of the sea, which more than suited the British in their primary interest - that of maintaining and securing trade links with the various components of her vast overseas empire.

Brutally put, Britain used other nations to do her land fighting for her, spilled other nations’ blood to serve British interests and protect her ‘ramparts’ along the Continental channel coast.

The sole departure from this precisely balanced and predominantly successful policy had been, of course, the First World War.



Imperial Germany had exploded out of nowhere as the main threat to the stability of continental Europe, which was, in itself, worrying to the British, but the main cause of concern was the Kaiser’s determination to build an Atlantic based fleet of a size and modernity to challenge Britain’s long held supremacy over the seas.